The Atlanta constitution. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1885-19??, 1887-11-01

| we'll informed as he would like to be with
regard to the exact points upon which counsel
for the petitioners relied. In the first of his
argument, Mr.. Tucker planted himself
sqIlareiy upon the rights which belonged to his
clients under the fourteenth amendment, but
in the latter part he changed ground slightly
and insisted that the first ten amendments
were declarations of individual rights, and
that they were all comprised in provisions of
the fourteenth amendment. The attorney gen.
eral opposed this view and insisted that the pro-
hibitions contained III the first ten amendments
to the constitution are limitations on the powers
of the federal government and not upon the
states. The fourteenth amendment declares:
No STATE shall make or enforce ANY LAW which
shall abridge Il priN eye immunities Of citizens
of the United States shall any deprive any
person Of lite, liberty or property without due pro-
cess of law; nor deny to any person within its Juris
dicti0n the equal protection of laws.
The record will show that the complaint is
not that the state has made or lis inforcing a
law which deprives the petitioners of any of
the privileges or immunities guaranteed by
that section, but that they are deprived of
rights by an erroneous construction of the
law, placed upon it by a trial court of the state.
Due process of law means the claw of the
land" In the case of PresSCr VS.. the
state of Illinois, November, 1885, the federal
question raised was as to the right to bear
arms, and it was contended that the Illinois
statute was a limitation of his rights as a
citizen of the United States under the 18th
amendment. This court held that the right
to bear arms was no right guaranteed by the
constitution of the United States, though the
federal government was only prevented by the
second amendment from infringing that
right Dealing with such a right was a mat
Ter for state discretion, and that as police
measure state could treat it as it chose. 1t
was held, furthermore, that bearing arms was
not q privilege or Immunity of citizenship
of the United States contemplated by
the
Tho o++ornay, oonnroI +ba, oo11ad attention
forcbly to the fact that recent changes in the
jury laws of the state all had for their purpose
and object the procurement Of a better class of
men as jurors. Is it possible, asked the attor-
ney-general that states are to be so bound by
the federal constitution that they can
not change their jury laws in accordance
with the changing conditions of their
social and political life? Is it possible that
whenever law is enacted in any state which
recognize the changed condition of atfairs-a
law which is intended to adapt the jury system
to such a changed condition-that the federal
question is raised? Then the conviction of any
man in a state court raises federal question,
and under the unlimited provisions of the four
teenth amendment that question can be
brought to this court for review.
"Mr. Tucker asks" said the attorney
general, "f I do not suppose that the
fourteenth amendment guarantees trial
by jury. l suppose that it does, but
we hold that it was not intended to interfere
withthe power Of the state toregulate jury trials
within its limits, provided it does not deprive
any one of equal protection of the laws
As to the alleged unreasonable search and
seizure" it is said that after the prisoners had
been arrested their desks were broken open by
the police, and papers and bombs, etc, were
taken without warrant. The encouragement
said he would like to know how criminals
instruments of crime could legally be taken
from him. He knew of no process by which
it could be done if they were his own. The
question for the court, however, was not show